Tanya S. Chutkan
How Judge Chutkan rules, drawn from 57 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Chutkan
Tanya Sue Chutkan is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Chutkan received a commission on June 5, 2014.
Judge Chutkan's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Chutkan, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Court Webpage: Proposed Scheduling and Pretrial Orders ↗
- Pretrial Conference Order: Civil ↗
- Pretrial Order Template: Criminal ↗
Key rules
Filing
Email proposed scheduling or pretrial orders to chambers in Word when filing them, with proposed changes highlighted.
“Any proposed scheduling or pretrial order should be emailed to chambers in Word at [email protected] concurrent with it being filed on the docket. The proposed order should be submitted in a format similar to the sample Scheduling Order and Pretrial Orders found below, along with any proposed changes highlighted.”
Motions
Avoid proposing simultaneous dispositive cross-motions in a case schedule.
“When proposing deadlines, the parties should avoid proposing a schedule that contains submission of simultaneous dispositive cross-motions.”
Conferences
For a civil pretrial conference, ensure someone with settlement authority is present or available by telephone.
“Counsel are instructed that individuals with settlement authority must be present or available by telephone during the pretrial conference.”
Trial
Separate civil pretrial statements will be stricken.
“Separate Pretrial Statements will be stricken, sua sponte.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
How Judge Chutkan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States ex rel. Kini v. Tata Consultancy Services, she dismissed reverse False Claims Act allegations based on unpaid H-1B visa fees and wages. The alleged regulatory violations created possible penalties, but the defendant had no established duty to pay fees for applications it had not filed.
“an unassessed potential penalty for regulatory noncompliance does not constitute an obligation that gives rise to a viable FCA claim.”
In Sobot v. Clean the World Foundation, Chutkan read 'new funding' in an employee's contract to mean funds from a new source. She excluded an extension of an existing grant from the salary-increase threshold.
“the term ‘new funding’ only bears meaning if it means that the funding must come from a new source.”
Procedural preferences
In Ye v. Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, Chutkan focused on pretext after the employer gave a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. She granted summary judgment because Ye did not rebut the employer's stated belief that she was insubordinate or show discriminatory motive.
“the relevant inquiry is whether SAA honestly believed Ye was insubordinate and disciplined her based on that belief.”
In White v. Metro Transit Police Department, she dismissed the plaintiff’s Title VII claims for missing facts but declined WMATA’s request for dismissal with prejudice, citing the rule that an omission of essential facts warrants dismissal without prejudice.
“the court will deny the motion insofar as WMATA asks for dismissal with prejudice.”
In the pension-fund case, the court denied a stay request without prejudice because the movant had not conferred with opposing counsel or stated whether the motion was opposed.
“MINUTE ORDER: Denying without prejudice 3 Defendant's Motion to Stay for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(m), which requires that the movant confer with opposing counsel prior to filing a non-dispositive motion and indicate whether the motion is opposed or unopposed. See Local Civil Rule 7(m). Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/10/22. (DJS)”
In Francis, the court rejected new-trial and summary-judgment motions after dismissal because neither stage had been reached, identifying a timely appeal as the appropriate challenge.
“Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment and a new trial are thus improper; the appropriate way to challenge dismissal of a case is to timely file an appeal.”
Cautions
In Herdoiza Guerrero v. Department of State, Chutkan dismissed a challenge to completed visa denials because the named agencies and officials lacked authority to reverse the consular officers' decisions, so the plaintiff's injury was not redressable by those defendants.
“Because none of the Defendants have the authority to bring about that result by invalidating the denial of her visa applications, Plaintiff has not established that her injury would be redressed by a favorable decision here.”
In Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, she found Article III standing for at least one plaintiff on the relevant claims but dismissed the foreign plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute claim because their allegations lacked a sufficient domestic connection. She applied the claim-by-claim standing requirement to that case.
“lacking a domestic connection, Foreign Plaintiffs cannot bring an ATS claim against any Defendant.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the court will GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24. An Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.”
“For these reasons, the court will GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. A corresponding Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.”
“the court will GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts I through III Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF No. 162, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), ECF No. 164.”
“Accordingly, the court will DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5), ECF No. 166, as moot.”
“the court will grant WMATA's motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VII claims, but the court will deny the motion insofar as WMATA asks for dismissal with prejudice.”
“the court will GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22”
“and GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27.”
“Therefore, the court will GRANT SAA's motion for summary judgment.”
“Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 2, and Emergency Motion for Interim Relief, ECF No. 18 are DENIED”
“the court treats Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as conceded and GRANTS it”
“the court will GRANT Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. Counts V–X of Plaintiff's Complaint will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
“Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on Counts I–IV will be DENIED”
“the court will DENY Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' negligence and breach of contract claims, but GRANT Defendant's motion as to Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim”
“the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to his federal law claim and the case is remanded to the D.C. Superior Court”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The latest sample includes immigration, federal tort, civil-rights, employment, reimbursement, and employee-benefit matters. Seven records report termination dates and one does not, but transfers, administrative closure, consolidation, and incomplete metadata prevent a reliable case-duration or caseload-percentage estimate.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 1 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 49 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 49 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 49 |
| Mar 2025 | 9 | 45 |
| Sep 2024 | 27 | 44 |
| Mar 2024 | 26 | 39 |
| Sep 2023 | 30 | 42 |
| Mar 2023 | 32 | 40 |
| Sep 2022 | 55 | 36 |
| Mar 2022 | 63 | 30 |
| Sep 2021 | 80 | 36 |
| Mar 2021 | 62 | 30 |
| Sep 2020 | 42 | 20 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Chutkan: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Chutkan with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Chutkan, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Chutkan's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace